The replies to this tweet do a pretty good job of making Sam’s point.https://twitter.com/sama/status/941355543213498368 …
I don't think that's a good analysis. We're talking on Twitter so people are using his sentence because he used it as a real example of how far his perspective goes and it can fit into a tweet. I don't think it's an uncharitable shortening. He used the example on purpose.
-
-
Yes he did. He’s saying “this is so important to me that I’m willing be harassed to have it”. Other people may not be willing to endure that, and thats fine, and we can debate about what standards we uphold as a group, but I think the anger at Sam for saying this isn’t deserved.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I read the entire post multiple times. His argument boiled down to asking people to tone down their reactions to what they perceive to be bigoted attacks because an environment in which people react strongly en masse enables the notion of "heresy", ...
-
I think “bigoted attacks” was one of many categories he mentions. If you ruled those out, would u then see merit?
-
I don't think that Silicon Valley is actually a culture where it's heretical to "doing something the government had already decided was too hard" And I don't think the bigotry points are particularly separable from his broader point, which is...
-
"So if you want a culture that innovates, you can’t have a culture where you allow the concept of heresy—if you allow the concept at all, it tends to spread" He is explicitly talking about bigotry because he is advocating a zero tolerance policy.
-
Are you asking if he wrote a completely different article with completely different arguments and examples, would I agree with it? Dunno! But I don't think disagreeing with his *actual article* is making his point.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.